About many subjects but primarily: Physical & Mental Care and Disease Prevention for Personal well-being; the Health of the Environment; Our Natural Resources like H2O, Drinking Water; Nature as a whole, Fish, Wildlife, Animal Care; Tourism and Promotion of our Community and Businesses & Importance of Internet for Social Communications.

Latest Scientific Evidence Should Be Death Blow to Artificial Sweeteners

Evidence continues to accumulate that sugar is a sweet road to obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and other maladies. As the dangers of sugar have unfolded there has been an increase in the production and consumption of sugar substitutes, five of which are currently FDA-approved. A recent study published in Nature adds to a growing set of concerns about these artificial sweeteners by presenting evidence that they, like sugar, can cause diabetes as well. The Israel-based research team presented evidence that artificial sweeteners cause this outcome by disrupting the balance of microbes that live in the body’s gut.

This isn’t the first study implicating sugar substitutes with metabolic issues. Research at Purdue University found that saccharin consumption can lead to weight gain in mice by interfering with their ability to control their appetites. Multiple studies have shown that some artificial sweeteners can mess with the body’s endocrine system, and lead to insulin resistance. Many links between the consumption of artificial sweeteners and type 2 diabetes have been uncovered as well, and studies have also shown that consumption of artificial sweeteners can change the way the body deals with food that contains actual calories.

The link between artificial sweeteners, gut bacteria and obesity has been charted as well, in a Duke University study that found that Splenda (sucralose) reduces the amount of ”good bacteria” in the intestines, increases the intestinal pH level, and leads to increased body weight.

The new Nature study moves this ball of research forward by demonstrating that several artificial sweeteners, not just sucralose, can mess with our gut bacteria, and that this disruption is directly responsible for glucose intolerance—at least in mice. The researchers added three different artificial sweeteners (AS)—saccharin, sucralose and aspartame—to the drinking water of mice. After 10 weeks, all three groups of artificial sweetener-consuming mice showed glucose intolerance. Saccharin showed the most pronounced effect.

As the Duke study had shown that sucralose causes changes in the gut microbiota in mice, the Israeli researchers used antibiotics to wipe out the microbes in the mice that had been made glucose intolerant from consuming artificial sweeteners. Eliminating the microbial community in the mice with antibiotics eliminated their glucose intolerance as well.

The researchers then preformed fecal transplants to make doubly sure that the changing character of the mice gut microbes was behind their changing tolerance of glucose. Poop from mice with AS-caused glucose intolerance was inserted into the colons of mice whose AS-induced glucose intolerance had been removed by treatment with antibiotics. After receiving fecal transplants, the mice’s glucose intolerance returned.

The team then turned its attention to humans, examining dietary data and health metrics from non-diabetic people that had been gathered in in an unrelated, ongoing nutritional study. They found correlations between AS consumption and increased ratio of waist to hip, higher blood glucose, and other metabolic markers associated with pre-diabetics.

What’s tricky about looking at this kind of human data in these cases is that those who are drinking diet sodas might very well be doing so because they are already at risk for obesity or diabetes. In other words, instead of demonstrating that artificial sweeteners make you fat, you might instead be observing that fat people are more likely to use sugar substitutes. So while interesting, this correlation in and of itself could be misleading.

To address this issue the researchers assembled a group of seven healthy volunteers who don’t normally consume artificial sweeteners. For one week, the subjects consumed the maximum FDA allotment of Saccharin. After only one week, four out of the seven volunteers began showing glucose intolerance. Those that did also showed a marked shift in their gut microbial profiles, while the microbial profiles of the subjects that did not show glucose intolerance did not show this change.

The fact that only seven subjects were studied, and for only one week, won’t impress many statisticians. And the authors of the study are quick to point out that their results should not be taken as a call for anyone to change their diet, but rather as a signal that more studies along these lines are warranted. To this end, the National Institute of Health is conducting a large, long-term study on what happens when healthy, non-AS using subjects begin consuming sucralose.

The emerging understanding of the connection between diseases like diabetes and the gut’s microbiota opens up the intriguing possibility of treating disease by manipulating gut microbes. Using antibiotics to wipe out the microbial ecosystem in glucose-intolerant mice is one example of how this might work, but there are other ways as well—and don’t worry, fecal transplants aren’t the only other means. Taking probiotic supplements is another way, but the most important avenue, and easiest, might simply be dietary changes.

Altering one’s diet can be difficult, in part it turns out, because the bacteria in your gut are controlling what you want to eat, according to an article published by the University of California. The paper reviews some recent studies that suggest gut bacteria influence the brain and endocrine system via the vagus nerve, which connects the brain and gut.

“Microbes have the capacity to manipulate behavior and mood through altering the neural signals in the vagus nerve, changing taste receptors, producing toxins to make us feel bad, and releasing chemical rewards to make us feel good,” explained Athena Aktipis, co-founder of the Center for Evolution and Cancer with the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, as quoted in the article.

One example of how gut microbe populations tailor themselves to a particular diet, a bacterium that’s particularly proficient at digesting seaweed is common in the bellies of Japanese people. This begs the question, do Japanese people eat so much seaweed because their microbiome is telling them to, or are seaweed-friendly Japanese microbiomes the result of so much seaweed eating? Probably a bit of both. We can exert control over our microbiomes, but they can control us as well.

As Carlo Maley, director of the UCSF Center for Evolution and Cancer, explained, “There is a diversity of interests represented in the microbiome, some aligned with our own dietary goals, and others not.”

In the coming years, the relationship between diet, gut microbes and health will be further teased apart by scientists, and the role that artificial sweeteners play in this dynamic will surely be more clear. But science moves at a slow, cautious pace. Even if we don’t know exactly how artificial sweeteners can cause us harm, it’s becoming increasingly clear that they do. Consume accordingly.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Surrey, B.C. – On Thursday, September 11th, the Surrey Board of Trade will host the 8th Annual Surrey Environment and Business Awards Lunch, featuring a Waste Management Solutions Panel. The panelists will speak to topics such as Multi Material BC (MMBC), Organics Waste, and Bylaw 280 – Regulation of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials. The five panelists are:

Media representatives are invited as our guests. Please RSVP by replying to this email.

The event will also feature a presentation by Surrey Councillor Bruce Hayne on the Green Surrey Program, as well as the presentation of the Environment and Business Awards. The awards are presented to Surrey Board of Trade members or Surrey-based businesses that have demonstrated exceptional dedication to environmental leadership and/or issues. The award recipients are guided by a sense of respect for the environment and demonstrate this initiative consistently.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

stop stop stop using ASPERTAME and the likes...

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Ross Buchanan

August 29, 2014 Extracted Excerpt from www.WhiteRockSun.com

Bizarre!

Check your bank accounts. In my opinion, we are all being scammed.

Bizarre! That was my experience when I started to take a look at the dollars that we are paying the senior management team at city hall. I started my search by looking at similarly sized communities but as you will soon see I had to escalate my search to cities like Prince George and Victoria, communities that have populations that are three and four times larger than the 19,000 souls we have packed and stacked on top of each other in our little community of under 2 square miles.

After much investigation and after being consistently blocked at every turn by public servants who were determined that this information did not see the light of day I have finally been able to determine that we are paying wages to the management at city hall that is absolutely ludicrous relative to the responsibilities. To learn that we pay Bottrill the CAO of the city of White Rock more than what the Chief of Staff for Obama's White House earns is one thing but to see that we pay him at the level that we do leaves me wondering why. Dennis McDonough the Chief of Staff in the White House earned $172,200 in 2013. The CAO of the cities of Prince George (population of 71,000) and Victoria (population of 80,000) each earn $142,000 and $145,000 respectively. We paid Bottrill $183,944 in 2013. Why? This is White Rock not the White House. Why is the CAO of our little community among the highest paid CAOs in Local Government in BC? He has a fraction of the employees and has a budget that is counted in the millions not the billions yet for some strange reason he is compensated as if he is the CAO of a very large city. I for one would sure like to know why?

And that is just the start. Following in the steps of the inflated compensation we are paying to Bottrill you won't be surprised to find that other members of the senior management team at The Bunker on Buena Vista are also pleasantly

feasting at the public trough. Here are some examples that are revealed in the long awaited release of the Statement of Financial Information by the City of White Rock.

Tracey Arthur (City Clerk) is being paid $108,205 which is more than her equivalent at the City of Victoria which has a population that is 4 times greater than White Rock. Sandra Kurylo, ($146,000) makes more as Director of Finance in White Rock than her equivalent in Victoria. The Operating Budget in Victoria is five times greater than White Rock. In each of these cases, whether it is Bottrill, Arthur or Kurylo they are being paid tens of thousands of dollars more than their counterparts in similarly sized communities with similar responsibilities such as Cranbrook, Port Alberni, Parksville and Pitt Meadows earn.

And now you know why, when compared to our neighbours, we pay a 51% premium on our property taxes in White Rock. One of the reasons is that we are paying big city wages to a management team that has small community responsibilities. This is what you get when you have the former City Manager sitting in the mayor's chair. His allegiance is the senior management of the city rather than to the citizens.

When it comes to the people of White Rock, not big money out of town developers and speculators and not members of the senior management team at city hall, Baldwin just doesnâ€™t care. From where I sit it looks like we pay the highest salaries for managers of any local government in BC for cities of 100,000 or less. Compared to Prince George and Victoria, White Rock city managers have one quarter the responsibilities and the same pay as if White Rock were a city of 80,000 people with thousands of employees and a billion dollar budget.

Have you noticed that strange smell? That isn't coming up from the beach. That is from The Bunker on Buena Vista. Members of this council have failed in their duty to morally manage the public funds at city hall. It is time for a House Cleaning! They have stood by and allowed this to happen. The contempt that this mayor and all of council, with the exception of Helen Fathers, has shown to the people of White Rock is not just disturbing it is outright disgusting.

They have abandoned the citizens of White Rock to curry favor with the big money, out of town developers who give them gifts of developers who give them gifts of money to fund their elections campaigns. In White Rock, we clearly have the best local government that money can buy. In my opinion, if you accept gifts of money from developers and speculators you are in a moral conflict of interest and should not be on council.

The following chart clearly shows a comparison of taxes in seventeen medium sized communities across BC. I guess nobody should be surprised that White Rock has the highest taxes of any of the communities. The data below illustrates population, value of representative house, municipal property taxes and total taxes... Yeah!!! We are number one.

White Rock is the heaviest taxed medium sized community in BC.

Salmon Arm 17,464 $ 287,143 $ 1,354 $ 2,094

Penticton 32,877 346,114 1440 2,200

Chilliwack 77,936 331,183 1538 2,220

Coldstream 10,314 439,280 1100 2,254

Cranbrook 19,319 248,208 1753 2,457

Campbell River 31,186 268,323 1545 2,488

West Kelowna 30,892 461,955 1676 2,584

Vernon 38,150 357,595 1104

Kelowna 117,312 448,811 1748

Pitt Meadows 17,736 450,410 1760

Kamloops 85,678 341,525 1755

Port Coquitlam 56,342 528,935 2022

Mission 36,426 392,820 1839

North Vancouver 48,196 891,975 2185

White Rock 19,339 $878,824 $3149 $3,674

So we have the highest paid civic managers in BC and the highest taxes in BC for a community of our size. Hmmm. I wonder if there could be a relationship between the two?

We need to Clean House at City Hall. We need to stop the Gravy Train. We need take the community back from the Developer-owned mayor and members of council who have fueled this fiscal mismanagement. We need to rid ourselves of this mayor and council members who have taken money from developers and we need a new mayor and new councilors that are more interested in what the Citizens of White Rock want and need rather than where their next financial contribution is coming from.

As a friend of truth and a champion of transparency I remain committed to honesty in government.

See you on the beach

Ross

P.S .

One more thing. As I read the UN report that has found that Syria dropped barrels of liquid chlorine on their own people resulting in the deaths of 200,000 people I couldnâ€™t help but think what might happen on our own waterfront. BNSF ships 2900 cars of exactly the same poison, liquefied chlorine, through White Rock each year. Each car contains 90 tons of liquid chlorine that when punctured evaporates into deadly poisonous gas. Rather than 100 gallon barrels being dropped from helicopters what we have in White Rock is the possibility of 90 ton carloads of chlorine tipping onto the rocks at the beach and being punctured. One carload alone will wipe out much of the population of White Rock. Sure wouldn't be pretty would it? Makes me wonder about the value of the real estate on the hillside. The view is nice but the gas could kill you.

In my opinion, Mayor and Council has failed and in fact refused to act on their fiduciary responsibility to citizens as written into BC law in the Community Charter. Their responsibility is to protect the Public Health and the Public Safety of the Citizens of White Rock. With this kind of potential for a catosprophic disaster if even one of those 90 ton chlorine gas cars are punctured I would say that to this point that they have failed miserably. The real danger to the Citizens of White Rock is not the tracks but rather what BNSF is carrying on those tracks. A mesh fence even if you top it off with razor wire isnâ€™t going to stop chlorine gas. Toxic and lethal cargoes are the biggest danger to White Rock in the history of this community. 2900 cars each containing 90 tons of potentially deadly chlorine. We are seconds away from a disaster the immensity of which would make Lac Magentic look like a walk in the park. We are one second away from a catastrophe that will make White Rock famous. And the mayor and council refuse to act to protect the community and the citizens. All words. No action...."

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

"News You Can Use" by courtesy : Johan Sandstrom, BComm.

NEW BOARD OF TRADE/CHAMBER REPORT IDENTIFIES $50 BILLION RISK TO LOWER FRASER RIVER

“Immediate Government Action Required to Head off Economic, Environmental and Social Catastrophe”

Surrey, July 15, 2014 - Today, Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce from the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley released a new research study which concludes that $50 billion in economic development along the Lower Fraser River is at risk unless all levels of government act now to address the serious issues facing the river.

Without an integrated management strategy and adequate funding, “the Lower Fraser River is heading for potential economic, environmental and social disaster unless senior levels of government start dealing with issues now,” said the report’s principal author, Dave Park. “With over 300,000 people in the flood plain – and another one million expected to live in the region by 2040 – the risks are too great to ignore.”

The report was commissioned by the Richmond Chamber of Commerce in early 2013 with the Surrey Board of Trade, in partnership with 12 others Chambers and Boards, and the provincial government. The report was led by Dave Park, an independent economist and former Chief Economist for the Vancouver Board of Trade. Among the risks it identifies are:

· 1. inadequate flood protection infrastructure, which right now might not contain high tides in El Nino years;

· 2. lack of action on annual sediment removal from spring freshets, which each year move over 30 million m3 of sediment and leave about 3 million m3 of silt in the navigation and secondary channels of the lower reaches; and,

· 3. by the end of this century sea levels at the mouth of the river could potentially rise more than one meter due to climate change overtopping the diking system.

Based on these and other serious risks to the economic benefits of the Fraser River, every Board of Trade and Chamber of Commerce in the Lower Mainland – from the mouth of the river around Richmond, to the entrance to the Fraser canyon at Hope, are calling on senior levels of government to act now to commit funding to head off potential disaster.

“The current costs just for diking upgrades for the tidal areas of the river and for adjacent coastal reaches required by 2100 are in range of $9 billion,” added Matt Pitcairn, the Manager of Policy and Communications at the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and the report’s co-author. “Damage from a major dike failure could be in the tens of billions of dollars, with very serious effects to the economy of this region, British Columbia and all of Canada due to the impact on the transportation of goods and services,” said Pitcairn.

“The first step is to bring together the relevant stakeholders into a group,” concluded Park. “They should then be empowered to develop a collaborative strategy that will include the long term funding needed to deal with the significant risks to the Lower Fraser River, the region, and entire the national economy.”

The Lower Fraser River is a vitally important resource for the Lower Mainland, British Columbia, and Canada as a whole, with port activity that rivals Canadian traffic on the St. Lawrence Seaway. In addition to port activity, the river supports a myriad of other economic activities vital to the region and beyond, such as:

· 1. Soil in Fraser Valley supports some of the most fertile agriculture in Canada and annually generates more than 62% of the province’s gross farm receipts ($1.6 billion)

· 2. 9 of 10 Federal Small Craft Harbours in the region are located on the Fraser River including Steveston which hosts the largest SCH in Canada

· 3. Fraser River and its tributaries offer all 5 species of Pacific Salmon on seven of the most productive rivers in the province

The Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce chose today to release the report in conjunction with the launch of the Lower Mainland Flood Strategy by the Fraser Basin Council.

“The impacts from potential floods are a major risk identified in our study,” said Pitcairn, “and we support the collaborative approach initiated by the Fraser Basin Council today, to implement an inter-jurisdictional regional flood management strategy.”

The next step in the process of bringing greater awareness and attention to the major risks facing the sustainability and prosperity of the Lower Fraser River will be a forum hosted onOctober 16th at the Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel in Surrey by the Lower Mainland Chambers and Boards of Trade. This one day event will explore in greater detail the findings of the research report and how to best act on them. Senior elected officials and staff from all levels of governments will be invited, as will be First Nations and representatives of major stakeholder organizations.

The Surrey Board of Trade, in Surrey since 1918, provides businesses and organizations with economic opportunity, workplace development and education, international trade, government advocacy and business connections. The Surrey Board of Trade has 2,100 business members, representing 6,000 business contacts and over 60,000 employees.